Birtherism becomes respectable…
…if the candidate in question is on the right.
No surprise there.
[NOTE: I wrote about this issue long ago (although not of course in relation to Cruz), pointing out that similar questions were raised about John McCain when he ran for president and it was considered perfectly okay to challenge his eligibility.]
The cases aren’t quite identical. Both Obama and Cruz have one US and one non-US parent. However Obama was born in Hawaii whereas Cruz was born in Canada. As I understand it a major plank of the Birther argument was that Obama wasn’t eligible having been born in Kenya. If they are correct on their point of law (not on Obama’s birth place) then Cruz would be ineligible.
Having said that, and from what I have read, Cruz is eligible (and I wish that Obama hadn’t been).
There is a statute on point and Sen. Cruz has cited it in support of his assertion that he is eligible. Considering that he has actually argued cases in the US Supreme Court, his opinion is worthwhile.
The SMART thing for him to do would be to file a declaratory judgment action in federal court. In a state with lots of Republican judges and an early primary. What judge would rule against him?
Oprah walks into a Birther Bar (known in the last part of the 21st century as a BB) and asks, “Is Steadman here?”
The birth certificate problem was about the birth certificate. It didn’t really matter whether the guy was born in Kenya, of all places or not.
Oprah walks into an Irish pub and asks for a pint of bitters. Obama sees her and says how bout them Redskins?
Barry Goldwater had a similar pseudo-problem as he was born in a territory.
The idea of Obamacans wasn’t so much that the President was or wasn’t qualified, as it was morally wrong and racist to question Obama in any fashion whatsoever. Thus the complete BS from the Obama regime when it came to the birth certificates themselves.
In other words, two politicians easily take apples. One from a tree. The other one stole it from a baby’s crib and called it his natural right. Obama belongs in the later category.
Even when people have the “authority”, “power”, and “legitimacy” to declare themselves unquestionable, the problem is whether it is right for them to do so. Not whether they are or aren’t.
The goal is the process. To refine the methods.
Both Cruz and Obama are US citizens by their mother’s citizenship and eligible to be president. This really should be the end of the matter, but you can always depend on the right fringe and liberal middle to left, to be nutty on trivial matters like this.
My biggest concern is that having a parent from another country can lead to loyalty to that parent and the country. I don’t think that is trivial. I am fairly sure this objection isn’t directly found in the common law or various treatises or writings, but it is reason and common sense.
I was and will always be a Birther not because I think Obama was born in Kenya but because the factual circumstances falsify the narrative and the refusal to produce ordinary papers (and then to produce a fraudulent one!) constituted a test and foundation for later executive lawlessness.
Sharpie,
I still put it about 50/50 that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, but then I never really considered it relevant for the same reasons I didn’t care that McCain was born in Panama and I don’t care that Cruz might have been born in Canada. I find no reason to be less suspicious of the loyalty of someone born of Obama’s and Cruz’s circumstances than of a person born of two American citizens in one of the 50 states. There are plenty such of the latter who would sell this country down the river for literally nothing.
You just wait until 2017 when the otherwise illegitmate President Cruz reveals his true colors, and orders the military to help with the annual sugar harvest, while he smokes his filthy cigars in the White House! At least then we will have wonderful health care and education just like in his real country… Enduring five hour speeches and having a few hundred thousand political prisoners will be a small price to bear. And everybody fell for the Canada head fake.
Citizenship is a status derived from legal jurisdiction. When associated with land or other transferable resources, it has an ambiguous character. It can only be considered unambiguous, and therefore incontrovertible, when associated with a non-fungible disposition. This is necessary in order to exclude and distinguish citizens from certain classes of people, including: diplomats, visitors, invaders, etc. An individual can only be considered a “natural born” citizen when conceived by a mother and father who are both citizens. All other citizens are naturalized, which is a status granted by fiat in accordance with the law.
For the sake of controlling corruption, a law can be neither ambiguous nor selective. There is, in fact, no rule of law, when these conditions are breached. It should come as no surprise that corruption is a progressive process in the absence of countervailing forces.
A slave often does not care what color his shackles are. Much in the same way are citizens incapable of caring for what type of people their rulers are.